Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!

But see evolution does stop there, it is you and everyone else that pushes its boundaries to cover everything. This is the mistake, and this is what
creates the evolution theory, but the fact is, evolution exists. Look up the definition of evolution it says nothing about being the origins of
mankind. Just the fact that evolution is the term used to describe that organisms change from generation to generation, and over time can form
organisms with different abilities. Anyone that says that this doesn't exist, will have to do a lot of explaining as to how everything works. Just
because evolution exists, does not mean that we evolved from something on this planet to what we are now.

The random mutation leading to adaptive breeding of superior species
postulated in Darwin's theory is a very crude and slow methodology.
Dynamic adaptation of a species to it's surroundings is a concept worth exploring.
An example in plant life can be seen here....

The claim is that evolution is a fact, which is true, we evolve over generations, nobody can deny that, well you can, but as I said earliar that would
be like denying the fact that the earth is a sphere.

The fact of the Earth being a sphere, is not debatable. Now, claiming we evolve over
generations is also a fact, if you're talking about small changes and adaptations. Where evolution becomes a theory, though, is saying these small
adaptations(facts) cause change on the scale of all the diversity of life we see today. The Cambrian explosion actually puts into question the
process by which we think life evolves(natural selection).

The perpetual truth that gould talked about is that evolution explains how and why humans are where we are now. This is a theory, becuase we
don't know for sure our origins. For all we know we were created by aliens 200,000 years ago.

Organisms evolving into all the diversity of life we see today, is not a fact. If that's what you're saying I agree, but I won't pretend to be in
Gould's mind.

obviously you didn't read the article i posted, or you would see that every female human must have 40 children to produce ONE child who doesn't have
a new harmful mutation. (harmful mutation meaning genetic information was lost). the study it was based off of was conducted by three evolutionists,
and even they were bothered by the high rates because it didn't fit with evolutionary theory. evolutionfairytale.com...
abstract from the article:

Evidence continues to mount contradicting the evolutionist's claim that man and ape share a common ancestry. Over the last 20 years, studies have
shown that the human mutation rate is inexplicably too high1,2. A recent study published in Nature has solidified this3. These rates are simply too
high for man to have evolved from anything, and if true would show that man must in fact be regressing (a position very consistent with a recent
creation of man). Most evolutionists ignore this problem, and those who do attempt to address it leave us with just-so stories void of any supporting
evidence.

Absurd statement again. There are cases of beneficial mutations. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful, so your assertion that all genetic
information came from beneficial mutations shows your ignorance of the subject.

actually evolutionists don't provide an answer to where genetic information came from in the first place to avoid answering the question "where did
life come from?", but that is a slightly different topic. here is a great article on the rarity of beneficial mutations. beneficial mutations?

It is also widely known that beneficial mutations are extremely rare. Some workers have estimated that far less than .01 percent of all expressed
mutations are helpful to the organism. As Francisco Ayala (1978) noted “mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation,” but useful
genetic variation “is a relatively rare event....” (p.63). Dobzhansky (1957) likewise concluded that “the mutants which arise are, with rare
exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters” (p. 385). The conclusion that very
few beneficial mutations occur in nature is still held by many today. In Strickberger’s words “new mutations that have an immediate beneficial
effect on the organism seem generally to be quite rare” (2000, p. 227).

they searched an archive of 16 million articles/papers/reports/experiments and found only 126 that alluded to any beneficial mutations. and of those
126:

All of the 126 examples located were then reviewed, focusing on evidence for information-gaining beneficial mutations. It was found that none of them
contained clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations. Most “examples” of actual, beneficial mutations were
loss mutations in which a gene was disabled or damaged, all of which were beneficial only in a limited situation.

oh, talk origins, how i've missed you...not. talk origins uses outdated and blatantly false information. notice how all the research for their
supposed "speciation" is 40-80 years old?
primrose speciation has been debunked numerous times by different geneticists:

W.W. Cleland showed that this was not speciation. It was chromosomal changes (specificallly various trisomies) due to the curious fact that this
species has a set of translocations that results in a ring chromosome at meiosis. The ring structure means that each translocation set goes to
opposite poles during meiosis and each set has a different recessive lethal allele. Thus, only heterozygotes for each translocation set can survive.
The homozygous sets die early enough to not have a significant effect on fertility.

Tragopogon speciation is much like breeding a lion with a tiger, thus producing a liger (it is a real animal). it is not an example of evolution, but
of cross-species breeding. instances of this are rare and the offspring usually doesn't do well.
i'll do one more example of plant because i'm not going to waist my time going through all of these. you get the idea.
Stephanomeira malheurensis. this "new species" can still breed with the "other species" though, and i quote from talkorigins:

Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1
hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various
developmental abnormalities.

a very unhelpful mutation to say the least. funnily enough, most of the speciations listed on talk origins, when searched, lead only back to talk
origins.
lets see..animals..err..i'm out of space. continued....

Yes I believe in evolution, but certain species can also get artificially tweaked from time to time by other more superior or intelligent species. I
don't believe humans are a product of 100% pure evolution. We have evolved but we were interfered with a bit along the way.

The claim is that evolution is a fact, which is true, we evolve over generations, nobody can deny that, well you can, but as I said earliar that would
be like denying the fact that the earth is a sphere.

The fact of the Earth being a sphere, is not debatable. Now, claiming we evolve over
generations is also a fact, if you're talking about small changes and adaptations. Where evolution becomes a theory, though, is saying these small
adaptations(facts) cause change on the scale of all the diversity of life we see today. The Cambrian explosion actually puts into question the
process by which we think life evolves(natural selection).

The perpetual truth that gould talked about is that evolution explains how and why humans are where we are now. This is a theory, becuase we
don't know for sure our origins. For all we know we were created by aliens 200,000 years ago.

Organisms evolving into all the diversity of life we see today, is not a fact. If that's what you're saying I agree, but I won't pretend to be in
Gould's mind.

Yes I agree, but you keep linking evolution to the theory that all organisms arised out of evolution, which to say the only reason this is not a fact,
is because of the possibility of intelligent tampering. And somehow the small changes and adaptations becomes separate from evoluton. But this is what
evolution is, thats all it is, the changes and adaptations that are seen through generations. This is why it is a fact, unless your going to tell me
that we don't change and adapt through generations. The mistake is when I say evolution is a fact, and you say well no it isn't because we can't
explain the diversity of life with evolution. This in all reality doesn't make sense, evolution doesn't make this claim, people do, and then people
associate the claim with evolution. So to make myself clear, evolution is a fact, the theory that it explains all diversities of life is just that a
theory.

In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and
allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated
for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly
chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.

all they did was create a population of the largest beetles breeding together, and a seperate population of the smallest beetles breeding together.
"positive assortative mating" simply means that the big beetles tended to mate with the big beetles, and the small beetles tended to mate with the
small beetles, but mating on the bases of size only took place 50% of the time. the other 50% of mating was small beetle on large beetle. an exact
50/50 split. no new species, no mutations.
there was one other example that was woefully pathetic, but i can't find it anymore. it was a kind of fish that has a complicated mating ritual that
relies on it's colors. they bred the fish selectively and changed their colors, then found that they wouldn't mate. talkorigins considers this a new
species, though using a sharpie and coloring the fish a different color would have the exact same effect. hardly evidence of evolution.

none of the examples from talkorigins are valid in any way, shape, or form. the website is used by people to intend to bury their opponents under
walls of text and technical jargon, but no real substance exists there.

I already provided you links further up the page. Unless you have your own form of self censorship. "Oh look, someone provided scientific evidence
that contradicts my worldview. Ignore."

yes, sorry it took so long to reply. there was a lot of primordial muck to wade through on talkorigins.

Heres my problem with evolution. Supposedly it took around 50 million years for dinosaurs to evolve from the first creatures that walked out of the
sea's, but it took only 130,000 years for a shrew to turn into us. Dinosaurs would not have been to far of an evolutionary leap from whatever kind of
reptile/amphibian first crawled out onto land, in comparison to a mouse turning into a monkey turning into us...
In the words of ms. Garison your the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish squirrel, congratulations.

But see evolution does stop there, it is you and everyone else that pushes its boundaries to cover everything. This is the mistake, and this is what
creates the evolution theory, but the fact is, evolution exists. Look up the definition of evolution it says nothing about being the origins of
mankind. Just the fact that evolution is the term used to describe that organisms change from generation to generation, and over time can form
organisms with different abilities. Anyone that says that this doesn't exist, will have to do a lot of explaining as to how everything works. Just
because evolution exists, does not mean that we evolved from something on this planet to what we are now.

ev·o·lu·tion /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Show Spelled[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic
drift.

I only left #3 up there, because it was the only one that was pertaining to biology.

Ok, this definition is a fact if you're talking about one species. It is not a fact if you're talking about two.

For example;

If I say, the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic
drift caused the diversity in humans today. That is a fact.

Now if I say, the change in the gene pool of a a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and
genetic drift caused a species to split off into the human and chimpanzee species. That is not a fact.

This is the problem. People want to extrapolate adaptation out, and by saying it's a fact we're pretending there's not a scientific theory about
the diversity of life called evolution. People want to claim it's a fact.

Well to be sure you haven't offended me. And so what if you get a bit passionate with this topic. Everyone on this site knows I do. I just been around
this horn so many times on ATS. I admit that I will always get sucked back in
and acknowledge that at the end of the day. There is no way anyone can explain existence without sounding like a screwball. From the Universe just
farting itself into existence, to the God of the gaps. Everyone who trys to explain it fails miserably. To many warnings not to listen to men who
think they know more than God. Tell you the truth you can listen to men all you want. I find the creation story a lot more dependable and carries all
the clout your one hundred year old theory doesn't.

If evolution is a fact ? Then it dismisses a Creator. If there is no Creator how did everything get here ? You don't know. Somethings you never will
unless you are told. Do you honestly believe there is no one who does know ?
I absolutely know there must be and up against anything man can dream up. Creation holds up at least as well if not better. IMO A Creator just makes
more sense than no Creator. You can spout off the evolution is a fact all you want. If it is ? Then its a fact that doesn't make a lick of sense in
the long run.

Abiogenesis ?
I think it's silly. For the simple fact that it needs an infinite amount of time just to get started. Not to mention the multitude of things that must
follow in perfect succession with no guidance at all ? You have to be bonkers when you truely look at what you're up against.

Gotta love humans thinking they know something.. Bless their heart their ignorance is compounded by ignorance.

Is abiogenesis a fact ? Or is it a scientific fact ? Maybe it's a scientific factual theory ? Theory based on scientific fact ? Did I get em all
?

Well to be sure you haven't offended me. And so what if you get a bit passionate with this topic. Everyone on this site knows I do. I just been
around this horn so many times on ATS. I admit that I will always get sucked back in
and acknowledge that at the end of the day. There is no way anyone can explain existence without sounding like a screwball. From the Universe just
farting itself into existence, to the God of the gaps. Everyone who trys to explain it fails miserably. To many warnings not to listen to men who
think they know more than God. Tell you the truth you can listen to men all you want. I find the creation story a lot more dependable and carries all
the clout your one hundred year old theory doesn't.

If evolution is a fact ? Then it dismisses a Creator. If there is no Creator how did everything get here ? You don't know. Somethings you never will
unless you are told. Do you honestly believe there is no one who does know ?
I absolutely know there must be and up against anything man can dream up. Creation holds up at least as well if not better. IMO A Creator just makes
more sense than no Creator. You can spout off the evolution is a fact all you want. If it is ? Then its a fact that doesn't make a lick of sense in
the long run.

Abiogenesis ?
I think it's silly. For the simple fact that it needs an infinite amount of time just to get started. Not to mention the multitude of things that
must follow in perfect succession with no guidance at all ? You have to be bonkers when you truely look at what you're up against.

Gotta love humans thinking they know something.. Bless their heart their ignorance is compounded by ignorance.

edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs
because: (no reason given)

I have to ask...Where did this creator come from? Did he ''fart into existence''?

It actually isn't a very passionate topic to me. I'm usually not concerned at all. It's just something I like to debate, as brain food. And also to
give other worldviews a chance to show and defend themselves in case they are right.

Your post sounded like an amends, calling it even at first. Then it went on to the same old assertions.

You've provided about 6-8 more provably false or illogical statements, in your amends post again. But I'll drop it, call it a night. You'd blow it
off anyways.

Though, if you keep asserting facts the way you do, I'll be there to challenge and debate them. We'll find ourselves speaking again. Hopefully
you'll get good enough that your arguments become real brainfood(or even better, if it's possible, convincing).

Did you read it all except the part that said IMO ? And caring what others are seeing or what they think or trying to convince anyone is the last
thing I care about, as you can probably tell. All I try to do is make you see what Thomas Edison said.

"We don't know one billionth of one percent of anything ". People who think they do are the most ignorant in my view. So if you don't positively know
there is no God ? You aren't that bright in your assumptions.

Man evolved, with that I could agree, but we did not evolve. There's scientific evidence that mankind was hijacked and genetically altered at one
point. If we hadn't been altered we would still be 3 foot tall spear toting primitives.

Originally posted by BBalazs
Evolution aint no theory at all.
Its a fact.
An astute observation. Like there are males and females (and in rare cases androgyns). Is that up for debate?
Besides, anyone who breeds animals can pretty much do some mini evolution at home.
Its an eloquent and poignant observation.
Now you may believe something else, but it remains a fact.
And it is so incomprehensibly beautiful, why would anyone want to deny this fact?
It is about our Earth.
It is about the very soul of being human.

edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

Here is the definition of fact:
A fact (derived from the Latin Factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of
fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience.

edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason
given)

Define evolution. The parts most people object to, are those that cannot be scientifically proven.

At least you moved away from me making crap up. I suppose Sagan was just pulling things out of his butt to then right ? Or that's reserved for
creationists only or what ? Because to say it's impossible for a protien molecule to just fart itself together sounds more than reasonable to me. Can
you tell me about the magic that does bring it together ? What esoteric force is this ?

Think about this quote " There's nothing you can know that isn't known " We can't discover anything that isn't already known. Get use to it,
live it.

I guess that bideo is the finalo word on everthing huh ? Didn't watch it.

edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You just said, as quoted above and again: We can't discover anything that isn't already known. Get use to it, live it.

This is among the most false statements I've ever read here. There have been sooooo many discoveries, are you crazy?

For one, your using the internet. 100 years ago, it didn't exist, Your using a discovery.

Wherever you are where you typing, look around. Mostly everything was a discovery.

Everything humans made, from stone age tools to iPhone, have been discoveries. We DO indeed discover things that where previously known.

So what's the mechanism that prevents speciaition from occurring after a certain point? I say after a certain point because we have observed
speciation in both the lab and nature. So, since speciation has been observed, but you claim it is impossible for humans and chimpanzees to have a
common ancestor so there must be some mechanism that prevents speciation after a certain point. Since you're so sure you must know what that
mechanism is.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.